I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. My reason for introducing this Bill last June was a section of the 1950 Act which was passed during the period of office of the inter-Party Government. For the benefit of Deputies who may not grasp the full meaning of it I should say that sub-section (2) of Section 5 of that Act was an amendment which I introduced while the Bill was going through the House in order to enable land which was being taken over by the Land Commission during the course of the passing of the Bill to have the benefit of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Land Commission work was proceeding as usual when the Bill was going through and it meant that a certain number of cases —approximately 93—of the acquisition of vested land were in the Land Commission machine during the debate. Section 5 was introduced in order to repeal sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1923 Act. That sub-section enabled the Land Commission to acquire unvested land, or untenanted land, as the technical term is, and to fix the price of such land in a way which was considered unjust and inequitable for a long time. The sub-section operated in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, against those whose land was acquired in a very harsh way in some cases.
Up to the passing of the 1950 Act, in the case of unvested land which was being resumed by the Land Commission the owners were paid full market price, even though they did not own it, while in a similar case in the same townland or area, and perhaps by the same owner, tenanted land was paid for at a much reduced price. Coupled with that, the 1923 Act, and later the 1936 Act, provided that the redemption money outstanding at the time of acquisition should be redeemed out of the purchase money by the owner. Section 5 of the 1950 Act repealed all that and compelled the Land Commission, or enabled the Land Commission, according to the view one takes, to pay full market value for vested land without the redemption of the outstanding annuity, as in the case of unvested land.
That brings me to sub-section (2) of Section 5. Many Deputies during my period as Minister pointed out that the price of land which was being acquired during the passing of the 1950 Act had to be arrived at under the terms of the 1923 Act, and a number of people whose land was being acquired at the time would not benefit by the 1950 Act. For that reason I introduced an amendment which later became sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the 1950 Act. It runs thus:
"Where—
(a) the price of untenanted land acquired or purchased by the Land Commission was determined before the passing of this Act whether by agreement or by the fixing thereof under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923, and
(b) the Land Commission took possession of the land on or after the first day of December, 1949, and before the passing of this Act or take possession of the land after the passing of this Act,
the following provisions shall have effect:—
(i) application may be made to the Land Commission within six months after the passing of this Act for redetermination of the price of the land."
The reason I introduced the Bill was that some time after the change of government last summer twelve-months there were a few cases where owners of land should have benefited and ought to have taken advantage of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the 1950 Act and did not do so. I had in mind one case, but when five or six others were brought to my notice, it occurred to me then that quite a number of people did not take advantage of it for the simple reason that they did not know that subsection would be an advantage to them.
That led me on the 28th February last to ask the Minister for Lands the following question:—
"if he will state (a) the number of acquired estates possession of which was taken by the Land Commission between 1st December, 1949, and a date six months after the passing of the Land Act, 1950; (b) in how many cases application was made to have the price redetermined, and (c) if he will introduce proposals for amending legislation."
The answer the Minister gave was:
"The particulars are (a) 93 estates, (b) 23 cases."
That meant that out of 93 acquisition cases which were under way during the passing of the 1950 Act only 23 took advantage of this section.
The reason I introduced this Bill— all that is contained in it is an extension of the time—is that the sub-section which was designed expressly to benefit that type of case which was caught in the Land Commission machine during the passing of the Act stated definitely that application for redetermination of the price would have to be made within six months after the passing of the Act.
This Act became law on the 19th June, 1950, and a date six months after that brought us to the 19th December, 1950. The fact remains that approximately 70 cases failed to take advantage of it and the reason I introduce this Bill is that the Minister stated at the time that it was not proposed to introduce legislation on the lines suggested in part (c) of my question to him.
I want to admit that, strictly speaking, people should take advantage of the law when the law is passed through the House expressly for their benefit; but we must also admit that people down the country who are not members of the legal profession do not follow up and appreciate fully the niceties of the law or the benefits they may obtain, for some time afterwards. I now realise that the time limit which was embodied in this Bill—six months after the passing of the Act—was not sufficiently long.
A Land Act is a very complicated thing and the average man cannot reasonably be expected to follow it in full. Secondly, this particular section or advantage, I may say, now that I think of it, did not get a lot of publicity at the time and it is quite understandable that those who would benefit did not take advantage of it. One strange case was brought to my notice where the solicitors of the owner of the land were actually informed by a Deputy of the advantage of this Act and they were instructed to take advantage of it but did not do so. That was the only one of that kind. The others brought to my notice told me personally that they were not aware of the advantage that would accrue to them from this sub-section (2).
I hope I have made the position clear. The reason I introduce this is to extend the time from the 1st June, 1950, to 1st June, 1953, in order to give these people, these 70 cases, if they desire to take it, the chance to have the price of their land redetermined, where the land was acquired between 1st December, 1949, and 19th June, 1950. That will have an added benefit, as I have no doubt that where they do that the judicial commissioner to whom such appeals may come will have due regard to the redemption price of these estates at that time and will judge the cases accordingly. I ask the Minister to accept this Bill. It is a simple one, and I think it covers the cases fully without any amendment or anything else being necessary.